Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W14

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: AnesBench. Common metric signal: accuracy. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Apr 4, 2025.

Papers: 11 Last published: Apr 4, 2025 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this archive page for time-slice monitoring (what changed in evaluation methods, metrics, and protocol quality this period). Quality band: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

11 / 11 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

0.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

9.1%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 2 papers report explicit quality controls for this archive period.
  • Prioritize papers with both benchmark and metric anchors for reliable longitudinal comparisons.

Primary action: Use this slice as early signal only; benchmark/metric anchoring is limited for rigorous period-over-period claims.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 9.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 9.1% of papers in this hub.
  • AnesBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (9.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly mixed annotation units; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Start Here (Highest-Signal Papers In This Slice)

Ranked by protocol completeness and evidence density for faster period-over-period review.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Quickly compare method ingredients across this archive slice.

Paper Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics Quality Controls
Structured Legal Document Generation in India: A Model-Agnostic Wrapper Approach with VidhikDastaavej

Apr 4, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Overcoming Sparsity Artifacts in Crosscoders to Interpret Chat-Tuning

Apr 3, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Cultural Biases of Large Language Models and Humans in Historical Interpretation

Apr 3, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Adjudication
One Pic is All it Takes: Poisoning Visual Document Retrieval Augmented Generation with a Single Image

Apr 2, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Compositional-ARC: Assessing Systematic Generalization in Abstract Spatial Reasoning

Apr 2, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
m1: Unleash the Potential of Test-Time Scaling for Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models

Apr 1, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Benchmarking NLP-supported Language Sample Analysis for Swiss Children's Speech

Apr 1, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
AnesSuite: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Dataset Suite for Anesthesiology Reasoning in LLMs

Apr 3, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Chain of Correction for Full-text Speech Recognition with Large Language Models

Apr 2, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Impact of Data Duplication on Deep Neural Network-Based Image Classifiers: Robust vs. Standard Models

Apr 1, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 45% target).

  • Moderate: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (18.2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • Jailbreak success rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AnesBench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.